Henrique Jorge v Musekiwa Kambarami and Messenger of Court Murehwa N.O.

The first respondent was employed by the applicant as a security guard at the applicant's mine in Mutawatawa. A dispute arose over payment of wages. On 4 March 2015, the parties entered into a certificate of settlement (Form LR1) at a conciliation hearing in terms of the Labour Act, wherein the employer agreed to pay a total of $760 over two months. Subsequently, an arbitral award was obtained in favour of the first respondent for US$3,604.00. On 9 February 2016, the second respondent (Messenger of Court) attached the applicant's property (a New Holland 5640 Ford tractor and trailer) pursuant to this award. Prior to the attachment, on 8 February 2016, the applicant had unsuccessfully applied for a stay of execution in the magistrate's court. The applicant also challenged the award in the Labour Court (LC/H/app 182/16) and allegedly lodged a bond of security with the Magistrate Court, though there was no clear evidence this bond was accepted.

• Whether the arbitral award was properly registered with the Magistrate's Court before execution could proceed
• Whether the certificate of settlement dated 4 March 2015 precluded subsequent labour proceedings and the arbitral award
• Whether the procedure for execution against the applicant's property was procedurally proper
• Whether urgent interim relief staying execution was warranted

The court granted a provisional order: (1) staying the removal of the applicant's attached property under Case No. CG34/15 to allow the second respondent to follow provision of bond of security; (2) interim relief preventing the first and second respondents from proceeding with removal in execution of the writ issued in Case Number CG34/15; and (3) ordering the second respondent to restore the applicant's possession of the property which was attached and removed pursuant to the writ issued in Case Number CG34/15 in terms of bond of security pending procedures for sale in execution being complied with. Costs on a legal practitioner and client scale were awarded against the respondents in the case of opposition.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) An arbitral award must be properly registered as an order of the Magistrate's Court before execution can proceed against a party's property; (2) Where parties have voluntarily entered into a certificate of settlement under the Labour Act (Form LR1), no other labour proceedings should ensue without proper explanation for abandoning the settlement; (3) An arbitral award that makes no reference to a prior certificate of settlement is procedurally irregular where such settlement exists; and (4) Without proper registration of an arbitral award and without explanation for abandoning a prior settlement, the execution process is not legally sustainable and warrants urgent court intervention to stay execution.

The court noted that there was no clear evidence of the existence or acceptance of the bond of security allegedly lodged by the applicant with the Magistrate's Court. The court also observed that the first respondent chose to ignore the averments regarding the certificate of settlement and instead focused on the fact that the intended appeal in the High Court against the Magistrate's refusal to grant a stay of execution was not yet in place. The court suggested that reference to the certificate of settlement in the arbitral award would have been helpful to explain the circumstances under which the settlement was discarded in favour of the arbitration process.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and civil procedure law as it reinforces the binding nature of certificates of settlement under the Labour Act and establishes strict procedural requirements for the enforcement of arbitral awards. It emphasizes that arbitral awards must be properly registered with the Magistrate's Court before execution can proceed, and that parties cannot simply abandon settlement agreements without proper explanation. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper legal procedures in execution matters and protects parties from irregular enforcement actions.